10.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Plovdiv.
11.  On 11 March 1996 the Plovdiv District Prosecutor’s Office opened an investigation against Mr Hamanov, a bank branch manager, and several others, in connection with a number of financial transactions effected by them (see Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, § 11, 11 December 2003 and Hamanov v. Bulgaria, no. 44062/98, § 11, 8 April 2004).
12.  In the course of the investigation Mr Hamanov was accused, inter alia, of having guaranteed on behalf of the bank – without having the right to do so – nine promissory notes issued by companies related to the applicant.
13.  On an unspecified date in November 1996, in the course of questioning, Mr Hamanov stated that the applicant had prompted him to guarantee the promissory notes. On the basis of this statement the investigator decided to accuse the applicant of having incited and abetted Mr Hamanov to commit the alleged crime.
14.  On 14 November 1996 the applicant was charged under Article 282 §§ 2 and 3 in conjunction with Article 20 §§ 3 and 4 of the Criminal Code (“CC”) with having incited and abetted Mr Hamanov to breach his professional duties with a view to an unlawful gain for himself and others.
15.  Eight persons were charged in all. The charges were modified several times in the course of the investigation.
16.  During the investigation, which lasted about fourteen months, the investigator heard forty-seven witnesses, examined numerous financial and banking documents, commissioned expert reports, and undertook searches.
17.  On 5 May 1997 the investigation was completed and the case file was sent to the prosecutor.
18.  On 1 July 1997 the prosecutor submitted to the Plovdiv District Court a thirty-two-page indictment accompanied by twenty binders of documentary evidence.
19.  The first hearing took place from 17 to 30 September 1997. The Plovdiv District Court heard the accused as well as several witnesses and experts. Some witnesses did not appear. Both the prosecution and the defence requested an adjournment.
20.  The trial resumed on 25 November 1997. The District Court heard several witnesses. Ten other witnesses were absent as they had not been subpoenaed properly and others, albeit subpoenaed, did not show up. The trial was adjourned until 7 January 1998.
21.  The trial resumed on 7 and 8 January 1998. The court adjourned it to 9 April, as some witnesses did not appear, and ordered an additional financial report.
22.  The hearing listed for 9 April 1998 was adjourned to 6 July and then again to 19 October by reason of the ill health of one of the applicant’s co‑accused.
23.  On 19 October 1998 the District Court held its last hearing. It heard the closing argument of the parties.
24.  On 30 October 1998 the District Court found the applicant guilty of having incited and abetted Mr Hamanov to guarantee on behalf of the bank, without having the right to do so, nine promissory notes. It sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment and banned him from engaging in financial dealings for a period of nine years.
25.  The reasoning of the District Court’s judgment was deposited in the registry of that court on an unspecified date in late January 1999.
26.  Several times during the proceedings the case file was unavailable as it would be transmitted to the competent court for the examination of appeals submitted by the applicant’s co‑accused against their detention. In practice, upon such an appeal, the entire case file would be transmitted together with the appeal.
27.  Throughout the proceedings the District Court and later the Regional Court sought police assistance to establish the addresses of witnesses and ensure their attendance.
28.  On 26 November 1998 the applicant appealed against his conviction and sentence.
29.  More than a year later, on 6 December 1999, the Plovdiv Regional Court held its first hearing, which was adjourned to 13 March 2000 because of health problems of the applicant.
30.  On 13 and 14 March 2000 the Regional Court resumed its hearing in the case.
31.  On 5 June 2000 the Regional Court quashed the lower court’s judgment and remitted the case to the preliminary investigation stage.
32.  The Regional Prosecutor’s Office, considering that the Regional Court’s judgment was unclear or erroneous, sought to appeal against it or request its interpretation. There ensued a dispute about the time-limit for such an appeal, which was brought by the prosecution authorities to the Supreme Court of Cassation. On 27 November 2000 that court dismissed the prosecution’s request.
33.  Nothing was done in the case thereafter, at least until April 2003, date of the latest information from the parties. At that time the investigation in the applicant’s case was pending before the prosecution authorities.
34.  On 14 November 1996 the applicant was arrested and brought before an investigator who decided to detain him. That decision was confirmed the same day by the District Prosecutor’s Office.
35.  On an unspecified date towards the end of November or the beginning of December 1996 the applicant applied for release to the District Prosecutor’s Office. He asserted that there was no evidence of him having committed a crime. Also, he had a permanent address and could not obstruct the investigation.
36.  On 3 December 1996 the District Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the application on the ground that the applicant had been charged with a serious intentional crime, in which case the law provided for pre‑trial detention. The testimony of two of the witnesses and certain documents indicated that the applicant had engaged in unlawful conduct. The District Prosecutor’s Office also found a likelihood that the applicant would try to hide important documents relating to the facts of the crime of which he was accused.
37.  On 4 December 1996 the applicant appealed to the Regional Prosecutor’s Office. He argued that there was no danger of him absconding, as he had a permanent address, nor of him impeding the investigation.
38.  The appeal was dismissed on 18 December 1996. The Regional Prosecutor’s Office held that since the applicant had been charged with a serious intentional crime, he had to be detained by virtue of paragraph 1 of Article 152 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CCP”). He could only be released if the exception of paragraph 2 of that Article was applicable. However, this was not the case, because there was a risk that if released he might impede the investigation by suborning witnesses and hiding documents, regard being had to the complexity of the case, the high number of witnesses to be questioned and the need to organise confrontations between the applicant and certain witnesses.
39.  On 20 December 1996 the applicant appealed to the Chief Prosecutor’s Office. He argued that there was no evidence of him having committed a crime and that the Regional Prosecutor’s Office had not relied on any specific facts justifying the conclusion that the applicant might abscond or tamper with evidence.
40.  On 17 January 1997 the Chief Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the appeal. It subscribed to the reasoning of the lower prosecutor’s offices, but also relied on the fact that there was another investigation pending against the applicant which, pursuant to Article 152 § 3 of the CCP, barred any possibility for release. That investigation had been opened during the 1980s and in 1997 was still pending without having proceeded to trial.
41.  On 18 February 1997 the applicant applied for release, arguing, inter alia, that his state of health was such that detention could be dangerous for him.
42.  On 26 February 1997 the applicant was sent to a hospital for a medical examination.
43.  On 4 March 1997 the Regional Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the applicant’s request for release on the ground of ill health but ordered his transfer to hospital. It referred to its earlier findings about the reasons for the applicant’s continuing in detention.
44.  On 14 March 1997 the applicant applied to the Chief Prosecutor’s Office for release on health grounds. The application was referred to the Regional Prosecutor’s Office.
45.  After examining the application, on 25 March 1997 the Regional Prosecutor’s Office ordered the applicant’s release on bail. It relied on the conclusions of the medical experts, noting that the applicant would not be able to maintain the required dietary regime and undergo the necessary medical supervision if he were returned from hospital to the detention facility. In addition, the supervising prosecutor and the investigator had come to the opinion that all documentary evidence had been gathered and the facts of the case had been clarified. Therefore, there was no risk of the applicant tampering with evidence. The investigation was continuing only in view of the fact that there were difficulties in summoning certain witnesses. Finally, there was no indication that the applicant would abscond. As to the fact that another investigation was pending against him, the Prosecutor’s Office found that this should not be used to the applicant’s detriment as the investigation in question had already been pending for more than ten years.
46.  On 28 March 1997 the applicant posted bail and was released.